spare car part in a garage in australia. anyway, cleo started acting kind of, well, drunk. >> she was giving us a scare because she was really disorientated, she couldn't stand straight. she'd fall over. >> so cleo's owner rushed her to the vet, who said the poor little thing was a few hours away from kidney failure. the treatment? vodka. >> it was quite funny, to be honest. flushing her with vodka to make it better. >> that's right. the vet put cleo on a vodka drip through the nose and into her stomach. more than a third of a bottle of vodka to counteract the effects of the anti-freeze. >> as the toxins in that called ethylene glycol, and they're very, very harmful to the kidneys, so what we need to do is give them alcohol, and in this case we gave her vodka to try and mop up some of those toxins. >> now, i'm not he will much of a drinker, but a third of a bottle of vodka seems like an awful lot for a little puppy. let's put that in human terms, shall we? >> if we put it in human terms for me it would be the equivalent of having seven or eight shots every four hours. >> seven or eight shots every

four hours. remind me never to go drinking with this australian veterinarian. believe it or not, little cleo is not the only vodka guzzling party animal to cross my path recently. lisa vanderpump of the real housewives of beverly hills talked about staking her dog jiggy the pentagon makes a bombshell announcement about women fighters. and apple shares plummet after hours.

and, wow, it's cold out there. so let's talk about global warming. and hillary clinton gets heated. the man on the other end is our guest. let's go "outfront." good evening, everyone. i'm erin burnett. "outfront" tonight, showdown over benghazi. secretary of state hillary clinton was on capitol hill today. she faced really tough questions from the senate and the house about the september 11th terror attack in libya that killed the united states ambassador and three other americans. >> we were misled that there were supposedly protests and something sprang out of that and that was easily ascertained that was not the fact and the american people could have known that within days. and they didn't know that. >> with all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead

americans, was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some americans? does it make?to fure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator. .>> an member of the foreign relations committee. senator johnson, obviously, you hear that moment. that was your momentardaretary n impassioned way what difference does it make at this point what happened then when we need to prevent it from happening again. does she have a point? >> first of all, the reason it makes a difference is because i think the american people first what happened. the american people also have the right to be told the truth. they should have an expectation, this administration, this pr and so i think it makes a big deal of difference. i tell you what, i was surprised by secretary clinton reaction to that because it was a pretty simple question. all i was wondering is why didn't you just call the

evacuees and find out, was there a protest or wasn't there a protest. that information could be easily obtained within a day or two. we wouldn't have had to gothrou. of misinformation. >> l c issues that happened at that time, but i'm curious about this. and the reason i want to ask it is two weeks ago, the only person in custody for questioning was released and greeted by fellow rebels in tunis. now, the united states of course as you know, has intercepts of communication on the actual night of the attack, so there appears to be a trail. it's been hard to follow. tom fuentes told our program -- no one mayor be held accountable for this attack because of the ongoing chaos. secretary clinton, when she was asked today whether this person was involved in the algeria attack, the one who has been freed, she said, we don't have any information about that. i'm curious your point of view. isn't the bigger issue now still is not what happened last fall, but holy cow, we may never have anybody go to jail for this?

>> nor held accountable for the state department. that's really the point i was trying to make. i am incredulous. these are security professionals that did a fabulous job on the ground in benghazi, but the fact we didn't have a standard operating procedure to debrief these people so we could get the information. that's what we were told in a hearing earlier, that there was no debrief, no after-action report, and that's basically what secretary clinton again confirmed today. it would have been so important to talk to those individuals immediately so their memory is fresh. i mean, every day that goes by, that information degrades, so i was stunned by the secretary's lack of concern for the fact the tunisians released that one suspect. they said they were going to take these guys and punish the people, but they don't appear to really be pursuing that aggressively. >> do you accept then that no one may ever go to jail for this? i mean, it sounds like, from what you're saying -- i mean,

i'm not trying to take you out of context, i know you're not going this far, but you're saying it's more important to say what happened at that moment than to put people in jail and hold people accountable? >> no, listen, i think we need to hold people accountable. we need to find the perpetrators and punish them. we need to look at the mistakes made. by the way, this is the failure of leadership before, during and after the attack. primarily before, during and after. and it is important to analyze what went wrong so we can protect americans, brave americans who are putting their lives on the line in the diplomatic corps. we have to learn from those mistakes, but yet i was asking just a very simple question. why wasn't a phone call made? why didn't we find out was there a protest or wasn't there so we didn't mislead the american people for weeks. we could have put an end to that controversy so we could have moved on to actually ammize what went wrong and correct that quickly so that other americans weren't at risk. >> secretary clinton was very emotional during her testimony. she was ebhoegsal in that moment with you where she was very

impassioned in talking about what she believes is important. also emotional on a personal level. i want to play that and get your reaction. here she is. >> for me, this is not just a ma of pocy. it's personal.stood next to pre as the marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at andrews. i put my arms around the mothers and fathers, the sisters and brothers, the sons and daughters and the wives left alone to raise their children. >> now, obviously, she was prepared to talk about that but, still, that was emotion, she was choking up. >> sure. >> do you believe that that was real? >> oh, absolutely. listen, we all mourn for the loss of those four brave americans. and, listen, when you're the head of an organization and something happens below, yes, you're going to take that personally. i definitely understand that. that was part of my point. you know, i've managed people, if something like that were to happen on my watch, you couldn't

have gotten me not to call those individuals. how are things going? are you okay? can we do anything for your families? and after you would have ascertained that, you know the next question i would have asked, what happened. that was kind of my point. why weren't those phone calls made? why didn't we know immediately basic pieces of information that we could have laid all this to rest very early on. >> so, you accept now, just curious, because this is an important nuance, you accept that they didn't know what actually happened, as opposed to saying that perhaps they covered up or misled the american people about, for example, whether it was opportunistic or preplanned or whether al qaeda-linked groups were involved or not? >> erin, i find it very hard to believe if they didn't know it was willful ignorance or just gross incompetence. the point i was trying to make, this was so easy to ascertain whether there were protests or not. from my standpoint, this administration just clung to that narrative because they wanted to cling to another narrative that if bin laden was

dead, al qaeda was on the run, all was well. their policy of withdrawing from the world of leading from behind is working and in fact, it wasn't working. it helped get this president re-elected by misleading the american public, but now, the chickens are coming home to roost and we're going to continue to pursue this until we find the truth. >> i want to ask you one other question based on what your republican colleague rand paul said today. it was a pretty strong statement. here he is. >> had i been president at the time and i found that you did not read the cables from benghazi, you did not read the cables from ambassador stevens, i would have relieved you of you post. i think it's inexcusable. >> do you agree? >> i'd say the issue is moot because hillary clinton is moving on and senator kerry's stepping up to the plate probably, so that's rand paul's opinion. >> do you think she'd make a good president? i have to ask that because 67% of this country view her favorably. her unfavorable is 28%. the president, anybody in this country, would die for that.

>> listen, the people on the other side of the aisle aren't taking the fact this nation's going bankrupt seriously, so she's a member of that party, we haven't passed a budget in the united states senate for almost four years, so no, i don't think she'd make a very good president. >> and finally, sir, according to a new book, reporter michael hastings just wrote it. president obama called the widow of one of the people who died in benghazi, sean smith, the day after the attack and said, promise to, quote/unquote, avenge the deaths of americans. do you believe him? >> well, i'll take him as his word. but you know, that was another curious question i would like to ask secretary clinton is why when those bodies were coming home, she went up to tyrone woods' father and said that we were going to bring this guy who created this video to justice. i mean, what was that about? they're just trying to continue to perpetuate this false narrative. this wasn't caused by the fact that al qaeda was on the rise. this was caused by something that had nothing to do with this administration. they're misleading the american

public. >> thank you. still to come, we're facing some of the coldest temperatures in years in this country. some scientists say it's due to global warming. climate change. does it add up? plus, apple's shares plunging after the stock market closed today. who is to blame? and manti te'o admits he lied. so is he telling the truth now? try running four.ning a restaurant is hard, fortunately we've got ink. it gives us 5x the rewards on our internet, phone charges and cable, plus at office supply stores. rewards we put right back into our business. this is the only thing we've ever wanted to do and ink helps us do it.

make your mark with ink from chase. meet the 5-passenger ford c-max hybrid. when you're carrying a lot of weight, c-max has a nice little trait, you see, c-max helps you load your freight, with its foot-activated lift gate. but that's not all you'll see, cause c-max also beats prius v, with better mpg. say hi to the all-new 47 combined mpg c-max hybrid.

[ male announcer ] when it comes to the financial obstacles military families face, we understand. our financial advice is geared specifically to current and former military members and their families. [ laughs ] dad! dad! [ applause ] [ male announcer ] life brings obstacles. usaa brings retirement advice. call or visit us online. we're ready to help. learn more with our free usaa retirement guide. call 877-242-usaa. we've decided to we're all having such a great year in the gulf, put aside our rivalry. 'cause all our states are great. and now is when the gulf gets even better. the beaches and waters couldn't be more beautiful. take a boat ride or just lay in the sun. enjoy the wildlife and natural beauty. and don't forget our amazing seafood. so come to the gulf, you'll have a great time. especially in alabama. you mean mississippi. that's florida. say louisiana or there's no dessert. brought to you by bp and all of us who call the gulf home.

our second story "outfront," deep freeze. it's the talk for a lot of people in this country tonight. the subzero temperatures creating dangerous conditions for areas that have not felt the extreme chill in years. we got very spoiled here in new york. it was kind of springtime all winter. the cold now is blamed for at least four deaths which is very serious in this country, and it follows the warmest year on record. some scientists are blaming global warming for these ups an downs, but the public doesn't seem so convinced. the number of people who believe in global warming is actually down eight percentage points from 2008. only 45% believe it is a manmade problem, which is down from 54% back in 2008. "outfront" tonight, erick ericcson editor of redstate.com, and john avlon. erick, the president in his inauguration speech took on those who don't believe in climate change. he made that choice to focus on

it. here he is. >> some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, crippling drought and more powerful storms. >> now, erick, it sort of surprised me to look at the polls and see that fewer and fewer people seem to believe this is a problem or a manmade problem. maybe it was the al gore effect. when it hit its peak or something like that. but it seemed like people would get worn down. >> you know, it seems to me that the biggest problem that global warming aggregates have is every time the conversation comes up is there's a snowstorm and instead of the winter, more people would buy into it. the biggest problem, what does it matter? say the president does do something with global warming. china and india aren't going to. our emissions are down below what they were in '05. india and china's are going up. so we could shut down production of everything tomorrow that causes greenhouse gases and china and india aren't and even

if everyone did, the effects wouldn't take effect until about 100 years from now. so seems like it's a problem we have to get used to as opposed to something we can cure. >> interesting point, although i will say, john avlon, we still emit more than china emits, at least per person. so even though we're back to back where we were, but there's still that problem. conservatives are already on the attack about what the president said. americans for prosperity said his address reads like liberal laundry list with global warming at the top. americans have rejected environmental extremism in the past and they will again. now, this did used to be an issue. again, it's back in the al gore days when it was a popular bipartisan thing. you had newt gingrich and nancy pelosi standing together talki about global warming. what the heck has changed? first of all, that picture is just so creepy. >> but look at that togetherness. >> we did have that. john mccain, mitt romney, marco rubio, newt gingrich, all you know talking about climate

change saying we need to address it. what changed you ask. two things. first of all, the great recession. when people are concerned about the economy, issues that are important but not urgent like climate change fall down the scale. the second change, the rise of the tea party. are you willing to work with the other side? newt gingrich took a lot of heat for that ad with nancy pelosi during the campaign. those two factors drive this issue down, but something like hurricane sandy, that could be a wake-up call. >> and hurricane sandy cost a lot of money. now, it's tough with all the pork that went in the bills, but bear with me, we got a $50 billion appropriation that just came to affected states. that cost a lot of money. so might it not, even if we're not really sure what a cut in emissions might do right now to the trajectory of the climate change that we've experienced, might it not be worth trying to do something about things? whether through carbon monoxide emissions, co2? >> no, i don't think so. no matter what we do, we're not

going to have the impact unless the rest of the world goes along and we're going to drive up costs on people. for example, coal-fired plants. 19 just shut down in georgia. do people really want to do things like that nationwide when china, russia, india, brazil aren't going to do them? probably not. long term, it's probably not going to have an impact. we've had extreme weather in the past. the 1950s had more extreme weather than now. unless people start seeing that it's conforming to preconceived notions, most people aren't going to buy into it and it doesn't help that scientists have to stop changing the language from global warming to climate change to, now, extreme weather. >> well, but look, erin, i mean, you know, erick makes a good point to the extent that a multilateral treaty is a nonstarter, but china is doing things. they're making huge investments in green technology. >> yes, they are. >> that smog in beijing, that's going to be an issue of competitiveness for them, they're going to start taking action. the real question is this, can we acknowledge natural forces that are largely within ourselves and still try to do something about what we acknowledge to be a real problem

or say we're omnipotent to solve it? have a debate on how you deal with this. >> it happened in the past, but recently, there was this amazing study. the corals are going to die. nobody knows, but if we don't fully understand what's happening and how it's adjusting, how can the government do anything about it? >> look, that's a fair point. i'm not saying throwing money at the problem is the answer. that may be evidence of evolution -- >> i don't know, it's one thing. >> again, that's the larger point though, right? we should have a sense of humility, but we should take action to solve problems and if we don't, if one political says it shouldn't be talked about, it ends up looking like you're coddling flat earth society folks. you should deal with facts and propose solutions. let's have the debate there. >> all right. our third story "outfront," apple. profits were flat.

that is a big ouch for the world's most valuable company. tonight, apple shares are plunging. this is a really big drop for a company like this. it is biggest company in the world. down more than 10% after the close of trading today. since the debut of the highly anticipated iphone 5 in september, the company has lost an estimated $178 billion in stock market value and i'm not even counting what's happening tonight. so can apple go up without steve jobs? bob sa tech blogger who worked for steve jobs during his earliest days. he's "outfront" tonight and bob, it's good to see you. my question to you is really this. there's so many people out there, they worship the cult of apple and a lot of people out there who have made a lot of money on apple shares. the company said it sold 47.8 million iphones this quarter, but verizon says only half the phones were apple. that apple is not the dominant power it used to be.

is apple coming back to reality? >> to a certain extent i suppose. in a maturing market, they are. if i were investing, i would say buy, buy, buy. >> really? >> because this is a huge -- oh, yes. this is a short-term aberration. a huge buying opportunity. probably the stock will go back up tomorrow when that sinks in. apple is an extraordinary story and the drama of it plays to the traders strengths where they are looking for volatility and they're getting volatility, but frankly, the company's incredibly strong and has great opportunities and if you look for example, last week, tim cook, apple's ceo said that apple's biggest market was going to be china. where they barely penetrated. another way of saying that is that a third of the world was unavailable to them and now is. >> i have to say every young child i talk to in china, they all want the iphone. they don't have it. they have cheap knock offs,

because it's too expensive for them now. which leads me to the question i wanted to ask you. samsung is selling more phones than apple. samsung is still more popular than april until some cases. but apple still does have that cachet. but can apple compete without slashing its price? something steve jobs never wanted to do? >> i think they'll do both. i think they'll produce a regional product that will maybe be limited to china and countries like china. at the same time, apple's success has been from developing new markets and frankly, the samsung phones, courts have said, sure looks like a copy to us. and in this instance, there will be another product classification. there will be another iphone, ipad, itunes, whatever you call it. the next one is coming. there are still products steve jobs was working on before he died that have not yet been introduced. >> and obviously, apple's betting on those. steve jobs died in october of 2011. now, if, and this is a big if,

because betting against apple never paid off for anybody, but this apple does have some issues now. turned out to be longer term. are they tim cook's fault or steve jobs? he's rolling out his products, keeping his view. everything. >> well, to a certain extent, but tim cook isn't steve jobs. the job that -- steve jobs' job, there you go, was a very difficult act to follow and he had an advantage and that was in each case, he was pioneering a new product category from nothing. where as tim cook is in mature markets and he's having to carry those products further, deeper in. where steve would say, oh, to heck with that, let's just start something new and he'd start a new wave over and over and over again. the problem here is the warren buffett problem. warren buffett can't find companies big enough to buy.

apple is having trouble finding markets big enough to enter. when year a $400 billion company. thank you very much. appreciate your time. still to come, the pentagon plans to open new doors to women in the military. meaning women actually fighting on the front line. and manti te'o admits he lied. with the spark cash card from capital one, olaf gets great rewards for his small business! pizza! [ garth ] olaf's small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! helium delivery. put it on my spark card! [ pop! ] [ garth ] why settle for less? great businesses deserve great rewards! awesome!!! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? good morning, turtle. ♪ my friends are all around me ♪ my friends, they do surround me ♪ ♪ i hope this never ends

♪ and we'll be the best of friends ♪ ♪ all set? all set. [ male announcer ] introducing the reimagined 2013 chevrolet traverse, with spacious seating for up to eight. imagine that.

barrow island has got rare kangaroos. ♪ chevron has been developing energy here for decades. we need to protect their environment. we have a strict quarantine system to protect the integrity of the environment.

forty years on, it's still a class-a nature reserve. it's our job to look after them. ...it's my job to look after it. ♪ welcome back. to the second half of "outfront." we start with stories we care

about where we focus on our reports from the front lines. the family of junior seau's family is suing the nfl and helmet maker riddel, claiming his death was caused by violent hits during his career. he died of a self-inflicted gun shot wound to the chest last year and his family says the suit will send a message to the nfl to care for its former players to acknowledge what they call decades of deception on head injuries and player safety. the house has passed a bill that would prevent the united states from hitting the debt ceiling. at least right away. it's dubbed the no budget no pay act. it was proposed by republicans and it lets the treasury department borrow money until mid-may, as long as congress passes a budget by april 15th. if lawmakers don't come up with a blueprint for the budget, the measure states their pay will be withheld. constitution doesn't allow the no pay thing to really happen, so that is a pr stunt. any way, that's why the act passed.

33 republicans, 111 democrats voted against it. one dem who did, congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz and she tells us the bill wasn't a clean debt ceiling increase and only prolongs economic uncertainty. it only extents it for a few months so she's right about that. in the last 48 hours or so, u.s. cargo planes made at least five trips into mali transporting about 80 french troops and more than 124 tons of supplies. a spokesman for the u.s./africa command tells us the airlifts began monday, are going to go on for several more days. i couldn't help but notice this on the front page of yahoo! earlier today, the poll today asking you, should the united states intervene in mali. the latest results. so a majority of people say no. the faa still hasn't determined what's causing electrical problems on boeing 787 dreamliner, telling reporters they're still evaluating the idea.

the national transportation safety board, meanwhile, says the battery pulled from a dream liner showed signs of thermal damage. ntsb's michael boyd tells us he's never seen an investigation like this. where the faa says a plane is safe and then grounds it. he says the faa has egg all over its face. it's been 538 days since the country lost its top credit rating. what are we doing to get it back? the imf says the economy will grow by 2% this year but, you know what, that's not really very good, and the u.s. needs to work on entitlement reform. our next story "outfront. "women on the front line. a ground-breaking decision from the pentagon. cnn has learned that defense secretary leon panetta will announce a lift on the ban against women serving in combat positions. this is pretty incredible. this move, to give you a sense of the significance, could open up 230,000 frontline jobs to women in the military.

"outfront" tonight, rosa brooks, a columnist for foreign policy and has worked in the pentagon under the obama administration and david frum, former speech writer for george w. bush and a contributor for us. rosa, right now, 50% of active duty personnel are women. they're not in combat positions. as we said, this could be hundreds of thousand of jobs suddenly would be open to women. am i right in saying this is hublgly significant? >> it's absolutely enormous. the one thing i would say though, it's not that we don't have women in combat positions. we have women who are ineligible under the former policy for combat military occupational specialties. but there really isn't any front line in today's wars. we've got women out there in combat, we've got women fighting heroically in combat, we've got women who have died in combat. this change just recognizes what's already a reality, frankly. >> david, please be blunt. i know what you have to say is, might offend some people, but this is important. why do you think women in combat is not a good idea? >> well, first, i think we need to stress, this is quite an abstract notion.

the number of women who will seek and qualify for combat specialties is likely to be quite minimal. of those who do, i think there are three concerns for why this is not a good idea. the first, the first is, is that we are going to see as we have already seen, the expansion roles of women steady downward pressure. strength and endurance requirements in order to get numbers up. the second, in the -- that i would really worry about, is the risk of harm to female personnel. the people we are likely to meet on the next battlefield are people who use rape and sexual abuse as actual tools of politics. in iranian prisons, rape is a frequent, frequent practice -- >> david, men get raped, too, you know. men get raped, too. probably as much frequency in the prisons -- >> let me just make one more point, then you can have the talking stick as long as you want. in iran, in pakistan, in

afghanistan, rape is a conscious tool of subjugation. they will face unequal risk. the third point, one we should give real thought to, is the stress on military families. we already lose a lot of officers at the major and kern colonel level, because of the strained families. for those military spouses who are not in combat, this is one more reason to worry about the high rate of family break-up that we already see among military personnel. >> david, forgive me, i think you're dead wrong on all those points. on the last, you're absolutely right. there's been a lot of strain on military families. the solution is not to deny women the opportunity to serve in combat positions, the solution is to rejigger the military personnel system to do a better job of making sure families do not have two parents at risk at the same time. and allow greater flexibility. on the issue of rape, if a woman is willing to assume the risk, just as a woman is willing to assume the risk of getting hurt

or getting killed, just as our men in combat will assume that risk, that's up to her. it's not up to us to say you're not allowed. it's a risk men take, too. and on the issue of standards dropping, wow, i think it's the exact opposite. we are struggling to make sure that we can continue to recruit and retain the most qualified military personnel. right now, women for instance, go to college, graduate from college, get higher grades. much higher rates than men. don't we want to do everything we can to incent size their inclusion in a military that includes less and less of sheer brawn. >> it seems like, and i don't say this to be negative about leon panetta, it might be that after ten years of war, it's hard to recruit men and they may be more successful with women. women are serving in combat positions in other countries. you know, we're aware of that. israel. australia, denmark, canada, but there are jobs off limits for women in each of those places. different jobs that are off limits. is there any position that you think a woman may not be able to do? yes, some women are bigger and

stronger than men, but most women are not. as big and strong as men. i remember learning that, much to my chagrin, when i became a teenager and no longer was the fastest. they are built more physically than women. >> i remember learning that i couldn't beat up my little brother anymore. i didn't like that at all. many women are less strong than most men, but some women are stronger than many men. right now, the marine corps will allow men to join if they are 4'10" tall and 96 pounds, so if the marines can make a man out of a guy that small, it seems to me the marine corps could use a fuel good women, too. there are a whole lot of women, in fact, the overwhelming majority, of women who are a great deal stronger and tougher than that. >> we honor people who make military careers, but the purpose of the military is not to make careers available for ambitious military officers.

it's to be the most effective force and the pressure will be strong not only to degrade standards, but when we talked about the issue of combat, to keep things quiet. there have been a lot of stories in the military already of exactly the kind of abuse rosa talks about. because politicians worry about the effect on public opinion at home, a lot of that gets suppressed and a lot of women, i think some may be put in harm's way without adequate information about who they're fighting and the particular kind of risk that a likely next enemy of the united states is going to be posing on the female -- >> i think you're not giving women enough credit. >> the rest of this planet is not a gender neutral place. >> absolutely not. you're absolutely -- >> going to hit pause there. i want to have you both back to keep talking about this. it's a tough one and a lot of issues and gender roles and mothers and fathers. it's a tough question.

>> and now, move to the manti te'o hoax story. the former star notre dame football player is admitting he lied to the media and public. after learning the girl he met online didn't exist. in an interview with katie couric, he was asked if it was somehow intoxicating to continue talking about his dead girlfriend when he knew it was not true. >> i think for me, the only thing is that i could, i had an impact on people. and i think that was the only thing i focused on. my story i felt was a guy who in times of hardship and times of trial really, you know, held strong to his faith. held strong to his family. and i felt that was my story. >> even if that hardship was perhaps exaggerated? >> no, it was -- what i went through was real.

you know, the feelings. the pain. the sorrow. that was all real. >> my question tonight, does te'o's story that he was a victim add up or was he in on the hoax? dr. drew is "outfront" tonight. here's the thing. te'o mentioned his girlfriend. assume that it was true. that he really, really fell for it, you know, and all this is true, but he did know she didn't exist and continued to talk publicly as if she did. we know there was a lie there. if there's one lie, do you think there's more? >> well, that's exactly the question that each of us watching this story has to ask ourselves. we heard a similar public figure who maintained his image to be an inspiration to people through a sustained lie over a period of time. so all of us as viewers of media have to be very skeptical when someone has a lie in one area. whether there's not perhaps a lot more going on. particularly when this thing doesn't add up. it really doesn't add up.

the people that get involved in these kind of catfishing schemes often are socially isolated, they're socially awkward, they haven't had previous relationships and he doesn't fit any of those categories. you have to ask yourself, how did this guy get caught in this. and not only that, the nfl has to be asking themselves if they want to take on the liability of somebody who is that gullible. god knows there are people out there trying to take advantage of him. i'm not sure a team would want to take on that liability. >> so, how does someone truly believe, i guess this is the real question people have to ask themselves. if you are, and i saw someone make a joke about this. here's the headline. she's not your girlfriend. now, this person was sort of making a joke. how does someone truly believe they're in a real relationship with someone, a romantic relationship, if they have never physically met? >> that's right. and the only way that happens is through fantasy. and certainly the internet is a place that feels intimate but it is a pseudo intimacy.

these are not real relationships. an average person, a normal, healthy person, would recognize that and quickly move this into the flesh. flesh meeting some people call that, where people are actually in each other's presence and this has happened many times, where people are duped by phone calls. or people give you the wrong number. this happens all sorts of spheres. the average person will go forward and try to meet that person. when they can't, they realize there's no relationship there. but to impew this thing with a fantasies that's built only on your brain, not another person's, only you pouring your fantasy into this thing, that's not what you call healthy. >> so do you think manti te'o, if he was to see past some psychological challenges? sounds like you're saying yes. >> i'm wondering, if he was that badly duped, you have to wonder what was going on there that would -- but again, and then he sustains a lie, says he did meet her, didn't meet her. the bottom line is to standby. there is more to be revealed, i

guarantee it. >> the nfl today said that the red skins players, some may have been victims of these sorts of scams, where women seek them out online and become their girlfriend, and i don't know whether they're trying to get gifts or money from them, but they said it's possible some of their players could have been victims of this. how common is it? now, this is football again, but it's kind of bizarre. >> mtv has a tv show about this called "catfishing." it happens in younger populations primarily. but in that article about the redskins, those players got duped and sucked into what they thought was a relationship and said let's meet. after a few days of contact, and they did lots of checking, too. there was lots of evidence it was a person there, so good. let's meet. that's what every single one of these guys did after a certain amount of contact because that's what you do as an adult. you go have a relationship. if manti never had a

relationship, if he had been socially isolated. some liability with his ability to navigate in social environment, you have to scratch your head and wonder what's going on. still to come, the speaker of the house john boehner says the president's goal is to wipe out the republican party. and an australian eats something unusual and it lands him in court. o important to make someone happy.♪ ♪it's so important to make someone happy.♪ ♪make just one heart to heart you - you sing to♪ ♪one smile that cheers you ♪one face that lights when it nears you.♪ ♪and you will be happy too.

overmany discounts to thine customers! [old english accent] safe driver, multi-car, paid in full -- a most fulsome bounty indeed, lord jamie. thou cometh and we thy saveth! what are you doing? we doth offer so many discounts, we have some to spare. oh, you have any of those homeowners discounts? here we go. thank you. he took my shield, my lady. these are troubling times in the kingdom. more discounts than we knoweth what to do with. now that's progressive.

now our fifth story "outfront." taking down the republican party. house speaker john boehner told a group of republicans that after listening to the president's inaugural address, he is convinced the president has just one goal. >> should be clear to all of you that he knows he can't do any of that as long as the house is controlled by republicans and so, we're expecting to hear over the next 22 months, so be the focus of this administration. as they attempt to annihilate the republican party. >> they're doing a good job. i really resist. you're always your own worst enemy. >> here's what the president said.

>> understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well. our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see america as a land of opportunity. >> annihilating? >> here's the thing. i think fundamentally president obama's speech was about portraying his particular domestic policy agenda as the working out of american history. this is where we're meant to go. >> it was a liberal manifesto. >> the explicit message of that is those that oppose his agenda are on the wrong side of history. it's clear that what president obama said during the campaign is he wants to break the republican fever. that doesn't necessarily mean annihilating the republican party as a party. it means making the republican party pretty much a miniature

version of the democratic party. that's what the president wants. that's what really all transformative presidents want to do. the president is -- >> they want everyone to agree with them. why not? they want to be loved, man. >> seriously, speaker boehner, what's the big deal. a big duh. if you're a republican president or democratic president, you don't want divided government. you want a house and a senate that's in your hands. karl rove, he talked about a permanent republican majority. he was trying to set up a system where the country at least 50% would vote for a republican president, republican house, republican senate. didn't last long. so that's what you try to do. republicans love talking about ronald reagan. why? the reagan revolution. to this day they talk about him. why? from 1980 all of the way through 2000 it's been all about reagan. this is what you do. i don't understand, speaker boehner. >> what about -- so issues like gay rights which he mentioned there.

what about practicality? what does this do to a lot of democrats that live in red states where people don't agree with that. they're running for re-election in 2014. >> do you vote based upon one issue or do you look at a variety of issues? same thing about the issue of choice. there are some people out there who say i am only going to vote based upon whether or not you are pro-choice or pro-life. those are single voter issues. when you look at polling data, you don't have a significant number of single issue voters in america. they are saying, hey, i might be for same-sex marriage or against it or pro-life or pro-choice, if it's about finances, i might choose a different decision. >> i want to thank roland for making my point for me. president obama is engaging in what we like to call hubris. george w. bush and karl rove thought they had a permanent majority. it wasn't that permanent.

ronald reagan's majority didn't last forever either. the simple truth is the more successful you are when you win a big victory, it also means democrats are representing silicon valley billionaires and struggling immigrants in the inner city. you represent both of those groups, there are tensions in your coalition and that coalition you win one day and you lose the next. >> nobody likes anybody. even if you like somebody, they get too big for their britches and too in control and american people say enough of you. >> here's the piece that speaker boehner is missing that democrats have a problem with. republicans have been doing very well on the state level. so when howard dean was head of dnc he kept talking about a 50-state strategy. democrats abandoned that. that's what you look at. govern mansion, house and senate on the state side so notion that you will have one party in control annihilating is nonsense and won't happen. >> thanks very much. it's nice to hear vocabulary coming out of washington.

annihilate, yeah. it's better than some of the other terms we've heard that they have used off camera talking about each other recently. still to come, huge legal news. a judge rules that, well, you can eat all of the flowers you want and we have a real problem with this. we're going to explain.

[ heart beating, monitor beeping ] woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this? [ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water. what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you -- including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $129 a year.

for an agent, call the number that appears on your screen.

we have big legal news

today. an australian fined for eating flowers has beat the rap. earlier this month a man named james and his friend, gary, were visiting a museum of contemporary art. gary got hungry and he saw flowers. he ate one. now, before he could finish though, the cops showed up and fined the pair the equivalent of $460 for vandalism. the two disagreed with the fine and went to court to challenge it and after a lengthy hearing with arguments from both sides, a judge ruled that even though the accused had been eating the flowers when police arrived, there was no evidence that gary intended to vandalize the vegetation. sometimes you just get hungry. as you can imagine james and gary were happy with the verdict. james, who you saw there, gary's name has been cleared of the slander. he was simply eating. i want to thank everyone for coming down here. you taught the cops a valuable lesson. don't bite off more than you can chew. sounds like a strange case, right? the strangest part is gary was not allowed in the courtroom during the trial.

why? all right. this is gary. that's gary. gary is a goat. you know what? goats eat flowers. a police officer actually took the time to write a goat a ticket for eating a flower. then they held a hearing. you know what? taxpayers paid for all of this, people. strangely, no one seems too angry about it. we know laws are important. they should not replace common sense. it feels like the world is becoming more and more litigious every day. you may laugh at a story like this. if you think about the bigger problem it represents, it really gets your goat. "piers morgan tonight" is next. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up

in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities

while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪ it's lots of things. all waking up. ♪ becoming part of the global phenomenon we call the internet of everything. ♪